About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
CSPAN 9
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN2 6
MSNBC 6
CNNW 4
CNN 3
FBC 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
SFGTV2 2
LINKTV 1
WETA 1
LANGUAGE
English 48
Search Results 0 to 47 of about 48 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the george w. bush administration. this brings me to another critically important part of our book, which is how the islamic republic of iran has become the biggest that issue of american mistakes and are ongoing decline in the middle east. in our book, we lay out how by pursuing a foreign policy and building a domestic political order that attracts publics, the islamic republic of iran has been able to take an impeach of american mistakes, to improve its own position dramatically. the key to the islamic republic successes has been that beyond the shift in the distribution of power, who has power in the middle east is a detailed earlier, something even more important is happening and that is the middle east will power itself is changing. it is now increasingly less defined by hard military capabilities for the united states has a clear advantage in the islamic republic of iran is relatively positioned and more defined in terms of the balance of influence are the islamic republic of iran has real unique advantages. as we explained in our book, the islamic republic is encouraging and taken
not just idiosyncratic, ideologically-generated products of the george w. bush administration. as we describe in our book, these stem from a much deeper source that cuts across both democratic and republican administrations, and it's something we describe as the united states, essentially, giving in to a post-cold war temptation to act as an imperial power in the middle east. and it is this imperial turn in america's middle east policies pursued with very little regard for realities on the ground in the middle east that have proven not just quixotic, but deeply damaging to american interests. as a candidate back in twaipt, now-president obama then seemed to really understand this. he talked about it courageously during the campaign. he pledged to not just withdraw american troops from iraq, but to change what he called the american mindset that had gotten us into the strategic mistake of invading iraq in the first place. he pledged to really change america's middle east policies. but instead the obama administration has pursued the same sorts of policies as its predecessors, the same
$500 bonus cash. ♪ >>> graph time. during the george w. bush administration, government spending went up a lot. this is government expenditures per capita, per american person. it combines federal, and state and local governments, right? as you can see, it start there's when george w. bush took office in 2001, and it wasn't like there was just some individual spike in spending that happened right after 9/11. it was a steady, huge increase over time. so per capita government spending was roughly 12 grand per person when w. came into office. when he left office, it wasn't 12 grand anymore, it was 16 grand in government spending for every man, woman and child in the country. that is a big, steep increase. for comparison sake, if you look at bill clinton, who was in office for the same amount of time, bill clinton also saw a spending rise, but compared to dubbia, he kept spending under control. it really takes off, as you can see, when it goes to bush. since president obama has been in office, he has been better than both of them. he hasn't just held the reins, like clinton did, he has tu
in the backroom deals -- >> even movements can be cloistered. i remember a dinner during the george w. bush administration in southern california. it was norman lear and his wife, larry david, bob scheer. they were sitting around w eeping in their expensive soup about the fact that we were living in hell. rupert murdoch on the media. george bush was president. norman lear had his pulse on american culture for 30 years. why cannot figure out how to deal -- deliver a message that is important and happening? >> that is important. we can find messages that speak to people where they are. they can also have some satire like stewart or colbert. there is the idea of exposing with satire. it opens people's eyes to the hypocrisy and corruption of our politics. the problem is you want the captivating stories and images and vocabulary, but a lot of the colbert-stewart stuff is so absurd and over the top that people do not want to get engaged. >> that is where a large number of people get their news. >> i think the obama campaign was a pivotal point, bringing people in. now they leave. there is the pos
president, and george w. bush was a guy who thought deeply about imuation reform, poverty and trying to craft a middle class agenda for the gop. george w. bush is a figure that many republicans have been running away from. so tell me, do you think republicans were too quick to abandon george w. bush? >> i'm sorry, what? i was tweeting. i'm sorry. [laughter] um, well, yes and no. i think, obviously, politically republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was politic thing to do. numbers don't lie. he became very unpopular. parties tend not to embrace figures and politicians who become unpopular. my view is that a lot of the distress over bush's domestic agenda from which republicans fled beginning really in 2005 had, it was a, it was an ancillary result of the failure to secure victory in iraq early and to have a favorable reckoning -- >> so iraq sank what might have been a successful domestic policy agenda? >> right. well, what i mean is that i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush on what would be efficacious for the country when it lost fa
of policy planning under president george w. bush and president of washington college. good to have you with this. let me start with you, if i may. i was -- actually, i was heartened to hear senator kerrey acknowledged the importance of us strong economy to our foreign policy. >> racking up all of this debt. as a result i think our ability to influence events is greatly decreased. hillary clinton, the of going secretary says, don't pick a fight with your banker. so i think secretary carey, when he comes into office will have a much harder time because of the whole economic sovereignty issue lou: your reaction? >> at the that is absolutely right. the real challenges have to continue to promote u.s. interests abroad when clearly the obama administration is focused on domestic issues, nation building and home. that's a tough task for the secretary to. lou: and the u.k., the foreign minister has a great sense of humor because he just a day after secretary clinton had testified to warn the u.k. citizens of the dangers of benghazi. that had to be -- somebody there had to be just laughing as t
distance themselves from george w. bush because it was the thing to do. numbers do not lie. he became very unpopular. parties to not to embrace figures and politicians to become unpopular. my view is that a lot of distress over bush' domestic agenda from which they fled the gangnam could 2005. is that an ancillary -- it had been an ancillary result of failure to defend iraq and have a favorable recognition. >> what might have been a successful policy agenda. >> i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush which would be good for the country when it lost faith that he was managing the war effectively. he found it more difficult to get hearings on some of the issues. a lot of people on the right to it came at bush on a lot of these domestic issues. they were feeling extremely distressed about what was going on in the war and did not want to turn on the war. we have troops in the field. this seems like a noble endeavor. they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as a result of the republican party getting thrown on its heels of
from george w. bush because it was the thing to do. numbers do not lie. he became very unpopular. parties do not have to embrace figures and politicians to become unpopular. my view is that a lot of distress over bush's domestic agenda from which they fled in 2005. it had been an ancillary result of failure to defend iraq and have a favorable recognition. >> what might have been a successful policy agenda? >> i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush which would be good for the country when it lost faith that he was managing the war effectively. he found it more difficult to get hearings on some of the issues. a lot of people on the right to it came at bush on a lot of these domestic issues. they were feeling extremely distressed about what was going on in the war and did not want to turn on the war. we have troops in the field. this seems like a noble endeavor. they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as a result of the republican party getting thrown on its heels of immigration, in 2006 i published a book on
the attendees. but neither president george w. bush nor george h.w. bush were in washington today. the president's arrival was greeted with applause and the lawmakers praised one another in bipartisan toasts and gift exchanges. speaker of the house john boehner presented flags to the first family and appealed for renewed political cooperation. >> we gather in the old hall to better hear one another >> ifill: moments later president obama echoed that appeal for cooperation >> i recognize that democracy is not always easy. and i recognize there are profound differences in this room. but i just want to say thank you for your service and i want to thank your families for their service because regardless of our political persuasions and perspectives i know that all of us serve because we believe that we can make america for future generations. and i'm confident that we can act at this moment in a way that makes a difference. >> ifill: and before they left the building, the group paused to look at the bus bust of dr. martin luther king, jr. that sits under the capital rotunda. then back into the cold
party over the past four years since george w. bush left town is roger els. he's run the party, he's run the conservative movement. when roger els decides she's not worth the trouble, then that means that conservatism's moving in a new direction. i talked about what happened this weekend at "the national review" institute's talk. i was really surprised. really surprised by what i heard. and heartened, whether it was bill kristol or john hatoritz. also scott walker who is doing really well up in wisconsin. and all the republicans got up there, and they were saying the same thing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. we've been saying here for six months, we have got to -- and john, i thought, had one of the best points, that we have stifled debate. the conservative movement has stifled debate. and if you go out and you dare to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting at
a relief it is! >>> welcome back. josh trevino former speechwriter in the george w. bush administration and now at the texas public policy foundation and ambassador swanee hunt who served as u.s. ambassador to austria, now a lecturer at harvard's kennedy school of government. we have just been talking as you saw in a very heated fashion about the situation in north africa and i think that's one core part of the legacy of the first administration's foreign policy and hillary clinton's tenure at state and i think the defining external event to the administration of foreign policy has been the arab spring, obviously, and all that uncorked and how to manage that. but before we get to that, we still have robin on satellite. i want to talk about the relationship between the president and hillary clinton and the degree to which the legacy of foreign policy in the first term has been hillary clinton's legacy and the degree to which it really has been -- the shots have been called from the white house because a lot of reporting on this has been very interesting. tonight there's going to be an in
party and of cuban descent. he will be influential. john mccain campaigned against george w. bush in 2000, a long time advocate of immigration reform is big advocate of this. democrats almost every case on this bipartisan committee as well as in the senate are expected to follow the president's lead whatever he outlines tomorrow many they're on board with that agenda. the big question and stumbling block has been for decades is border security. how do you define it, how do you support it? this includes the use of drones, technology, all kinds of electronic surveillance and et cetera, critics say there is not enough. you need a fence and more troops on the border. how that gets legislated and sorted out we her from the president and house republicans will be influence in the outcome. house republicans want to be very much a part of passing this legislation this time. jamie: i would love to see our troops continue to work down there. that would be so helpful. carl, thanks. jon: for more on the immigration reform plan let's bring if karl rove, former chief visor and deputy chief of s
presidents choosing that this is now coming home to roost. republicans gave his power to george h. w. bush and george w. bush, democrats gave the power to jimmy carter and bill clinton, barack obama has exercised this power in ways that has frustrated everybody. republicans didn't want to see federal taxpayer dollars going to these companies. it is lawful. is it constitutional? it is not authorized anywhere. tracy: we have to talk about the keystone pipeline. the governor says you know what, he can traverse my state. judge napolitano: this is very frustrating to the state department and the strong environmentalist that support the president because this is basically saying to the president we have the largest single piece to our state who not only have no objection to it, we want it. we are ready, they're here to collect rents to have this stuff built in their backyard, let's go, mr. president. now he has to find another excuse to block it and this is greater pressure on him to decide the orthodox of the environmentalist unless people in texas and canada exchange a pipeline. tracy: judge a
with us. >> thank you. >> former president george w. bush and his father, former president george h.w. bush, aren't attending this inaugural. president -- former president bill clinton and jimmy carter are. we are waiting to see president clinton. stand by for that. also taking a closer look at the downside of winning another four years of the white house. it doesn't always go so well. the second-term curse, as some call it. that's coming up as well. first, though, inaugural flashback. >> let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> we all remember the phrase the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. but even more important than the phrase was the whole attitude that fdr had. he projected optimism and projected forward movement. people felt that's the mystery of leadership, that somehow the depression they were suffering, they weren't going to be alone anymore. they had a leader who was going to take care of it. when you have diabetes... your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they h
director. before that, the president could appoint anyone he wanted. so when president george w. bush nominated michael sullivan, it looked like an easy path, but he couldn't get a vote in a republican-controlled senate. >> did i ever think for a moment my nomination would be held up by a senator from idaho as related to one firearm licensed dealer? no. i didn't. >> idaho senator larry craig along with two other republican, all staunch supporters of the nra, held up sullivan's nomination, but it wasn't the nra's hands at work. it was about one local idaho gun seller's dispute with the atf. even silver himself said the nra didn't derail him. >> i didn't get any sense at all that the industry was opposed to my nomination. nor even the nra. >> when president obama took office, the senate just sat on his first nominee, andrew traver, even conservatives like house republican darrell issa called for action. >> andrew traver, who i believe is the 2010, november 2010 dezinate, should in fact be given an up or down vote. should in fact be given an opportunity to be confirmed. >> but republican
washington, thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln and teddy roosevelt and george w. bush. >> that's what i'm saying. >> i think george w. bush. maybe fdr. >> stature, yeah. >> two roosevelts is confusing. >> maybe. i have to think about it and announce it tomorrow. we will be at the nationals games and spring training coming up very, very soon. thanks very much for that. >> sure. >> a prominent republican not mincing words saying his party needs to stop being stupid. they are meeting in north carolina. what they can do to rebound and remake their brand. would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. now that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. [ male announcer ] when we built the cadillac ats from the ground up to be the world's best sport sedan... ♪ ...pe
clinton and george w. bush as the third consecutive two-term president. when he takes the oath of office for the second time in the last 24 hours. >> i, barack hussein obama, do solemnly swear -- >> that i will faithfully execute. >> that i will faithfully execute -- >> the office of the president of the united states. >> the office of the president of the united states. >> that makes a total of four oaths of office. today east ceremony on martin luther king employing bibles by martin luther king and president lincoln. an address down the mall toward lincoln's memorial where dr. king gave his most famous speech. to spell out the country his vision for the next four years. it is america's quadrennial celebration of the office of the presidency, the orderly transition of power, the luminaries, the singers, the salutes, the speech, the pomp, the circumstance, the second inauguration of president barack obama starts right now. >>> welcome to washington. it is chilly but frankly bearable outside as the country prepares to celebrate the peaceful maintenance of power, the transferns of power fr
. george w. bush got 62 million votes in the 2004 election and conservatives said he had a mandate. barack obama got 62 million votes in the two -- 2012 election, and conservatives started a secessionist movement. but the obama campaign took it to them and made a difference in the end. they helped create a new electorate, a coalition of concerned and they turned it out on election day. our two political parties are separate and not equal. the percentage of republicans who are white has remained fairly steady since 2000 at about 87%. the percentage of democrats who are white in contrast has dropped from 64% in 2000 to 55% now. independents have gone from 79% to 67% white since 2000. the depth of republican dependence on white voters explains a lot about the recent election. not least about its outcome. republican efforts to suppress minority voters back fired big time. [applause] in florida alone, 266,000 more hispanics voted than in 2008. similarly in ohio, 209,000 more blacks voted than in 2008. overall, while romney received 59% of the white vote, all hot -- obama -- omaha? obama got 93%
george w. bush was not elected president, but was close. not that many votes. he was close at that time. he has been a senator all of these years and now going to be the secretary of state. i don't think there is any doubt they will confirm him and he will go smoothly. >> you said relatively smoothly. you think the confirmation is expected? >> yes, the confirmation is expected. it will be overwhelming and a handful who vote against him if that, but he will be different next week when chuck hagel is the nominee for the defense secretary. that will be a lot more brutal as far as the q&a given his controversial positions. i suspect that hagel will be confirmed as well. >> let's talk about the two key personnel moves we are awaiting the announcement of at the white house about to come from the white house. tell us about that. >> mary jo white in new york spent years as the u.s. attorney and she is very, very tough. the president is going to nominate her to head the sec securities and exchange commission. that's going to be a major, major responsibility. this lady is very forceful in going a
, republicans have not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? >> i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year -- president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 waterboarded -- while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you -- what have you been doing? guest: it is interes
. we saw the global presence put together by jim baker and george h.w. bush and the success of that in the engagement of the world's nations. but subsequent to that, um, we have seen a completely different scene, and that is what i would describe as the two alarmers or the three alarmers. and we've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and all of a sudden you have people who don't have that previous, a lot of people in congress who don't have that previous reference or who basically have come to the conclusion the world has changed, and we really can't afford nor do we have the public support for global engagement. and so when you go back home and talk to people back home, they say, you know, why do we give so much foreign awed when it literally -- aid when it literally is like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of walking and say, well, i'm going to go get a haircut, and that'll solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and the amount of foreign presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant co
president george w. bush did, referred to as number 43 in texas, dallas, texas. number 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth. 60 straight months of economic growth with the underpinning of reducing taxes so that americans would go and work harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. . ed underpinnings of social security, of medicare, of medicaid systems that are very important to our country. reducing the number of people who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have job growth. protecting the long-term interest of this country and growing the american dream. the gentlewoman from houston is absolutely correct, and the methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, it is not higher spending, it is giving more freedom and opportunity. it is having a reduced size of the government, not a bigger government. it is giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not more rules and regulations. so the process that the republican party believe
appointments. ronald reagan made more than 200. george w bush made more than 100. at issue in this instance is the senate technically in recess when they are in a pro forma session. pro forma means that senators aren't really here. they're not getting any work done. but they are gaveling into session every few days. the obama administration has argued that means that the senate is in recess. this court ruled otherwise and disagreed with the obama administration. republicans are praising this ruling. today they are saying it was the right ruling and that president obama really engaged in overreach when he made those appointments. so to your second question, t.j., what happens now, at this point in time the justice department not weighing in on what it will do next. but if you talk to legal analysts, they believe that the administration will take this to the supreme court. so that's what we're watching for now waiting to go hear what the justice department has to say about this. >> we also have a question of what this means for richard cordray appointed during this time, a recess appointment
over how to deal with the george w. bush tax cuts. the house wanted them all extended for everybody. democrats are never on board. president obama was never going to be on board with the idea. so john boehner struggled in that situation, even coming up with an alternative plan for extending tax breaks for anyone making less than $1 million a year. he had to pull from the courthouse. so that was. a was. the next day, he also -- not the next day. excuse me, on january 1, they came back and finally agreed to raise tax rates for those incomes of people making $400,000 a year. that was a tough bill and proposal for him to put forward to, just because taxes went up at the end of the day. the next day he came back and decided to not have a vote on the sandy relief package. that made house lawmakers angry in the northeast. governor chris christie of new jersey also had some tough words for him. he pulled the proposal because conservative republicans said the bill was loaded with pork with projects not related to the storm and they should've gone through the normal appropriations process. a
supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the
not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? guest: i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. .- was not great a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you what have you been doing? guest: it is interesting to lear
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. >> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thoug
benefit cuts. gale walenski, the former c.m.s. administrator under george h.w. bush, said in 2011, "if we don't redesign what we're doing, we can't just cut unit reimbursement and somehow think we're getting a better system." now, a lot of my colleagues give great credence to the private sector. in the private sector, one of the leaders in health care is george halvorson who recently stepped down as chairman and c.e.o. of kaiser permanente, one of the biggest and best health care companies in the country. here's what he said -- "there are people right now who want to cut benefits and ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in this country and that's wrong. it's so wrong, it's almost criminal. it's an inept way of thinking about health care." so from republican administrators to private sector leaders, the message is the same -- we have to solve this as a system problem. let me give a couple of examples of how you might want to go about doing this. as one example of the significant savings to be found in our health care system, a "washington post" columnist recently wrote
Search Results 0 to 47 of about 48 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)